The famed educational establishment is getting all sorts of heat since they’re inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their campus. Seems he had a hole in his schedule since he wasn’t going to be visiting Ground Zero. (No word yet on whether he’ll be permitted to go to Disneyland. And if you have to ask why I brought that up, you’re too young for me to explain it.)
Naturally the University is being hammered by people who want to see the invitation revoked, because they’re incensed that they’re being forced to come and listen to him express his viewpoints over…
Oh. Wait. That’s right. No one is forcing them to do so, any more than people who are repulsed by certain TV programs or radio shows have had the “off” buttons removed from their TVs and radios.
No, it seems that they are revolted by the very IDEA of the Iranian thug getting up on a stage at Columbia and denying the Holocaust ever existed.
Except…this is America. And at the core of what makes this country great is that, if we find an idea repulsive, we’re supposed to respond to it with more ideas, not the smothering of those ideas. He wants to claim the Holocaust didn’t happen? Fantastic. Have him do so, and then confront him with survivors of concentration camps, or soldiers who were there when the camps were liberated. Let him call each and every individual a liar to their face, if he can.
But who knows what the long-term result could be? There’s no such thing as an instant life-transforming epiphany. Even when it seems that’s what’s happened, odds are that the groundwork was laid for it over the course of years. Someone like the Iranian president (which is easier to type than his name) isn’t going to instantly realize he’s wrong, but perhaps the seeds of doubt can be planted, in him or in other deniers. It’s worth a shot. The dissemination of ideas is ALWAYS worth a shot.
In point of fact, he probably should have been allowed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero. And he should have been met there by an assemblage of family members of victims, standing there with photos of their loved ones staring accusingly, putting a human face on the terrorism that he purportedly supports.
Perhaps he won’t care. Chances are he won’t. But again, you never know. The man, for all his bluster, for all his vituperation, for all his wrongheadedness, clearly has a fascination with this country, almost as if he’s seeking our approval and has absolutely no comprehension how to go about it.
We speak wistfully of world peace. Of everyone getting along. But many people are reluctant to fully get behind the first step to such a goal, which is to understand the views of those in opposition to them. I’m not saying “agree with” or “condone.” I’m saying “understand.” Understanding why people believe what they believe, and–if you disagree with them–doing your dámņëdëšŧ to make them understand YOUR point of view. Understanding one’s enemy on human terms is the only real path to peace, which should be self-evident since thus far dehumanizing the enemy or trying to bomb him into oblivion hasn’t gotten the job done.
The song says, “Give peace a chance.” Won’t ever happen if speech is smothered.
PAD
• 
I’ve never understood the mentality that equates understanding or explaining a behavior with excusing it. Surely if you’re against something, you’d want some idea of how to stop or prevent it, wouldn’t you?
After the Virginia Tech shootings, there was a rather snotty online editorial posted by a local paper, all about the awful attempts to come to the root of the killer’s problems rather than condemn him for being pure evil. That attitude seems hugely counterproductive to me, designed to let people feel morally superior that they aren’t mass murderers rather than showing any concern that it might happen again or trying to stop it.
In the specific case of state-sponsored terrorism, it strikes me that it would be useful to know whether the leader in question supports it through genuine belief, is trying to appeal to supporters who have genuine belief, or is using it to achieve geopolitical goals without any concern for the ideology behind it. Knowing that would give you some idea of whether and how you can deal with them.
I’m for letting him speak and wish they had let him go to ground zero as well. It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash.
It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash.
Right. And then all of our problems would be over. No consequences at all.
Well said, Peter. And well said, Doug. For the past several years at least, it seems like a lot of Americans have readily accepted the explanation that the only reason people do things that strike us as reprehensible is “they’re evil.” So, they reason, what’s there to discuss? I like to think that we’re moving beyond such simple-mindedness…
No word yet on whether he’ll be permitted to go to Disneyland.
But will he bang his shoe on the table while he’s at the U.N.?
I’m suspecting the refusal of his being able to visit ground zero is a concern of security. I think the chance of a huge, emotional crowd on site would be large…
And while we already have Americans risking their lives to protect him (Secret Service Agents) at what point is it too much risk to those Americans?
And I agree with letting him speak. I don’t think anything has ever been gained by silencing speach. My only question is, at what point does a University having someone give a speach become a sort of implied approval or endorsment of that speaker? Should our institutions give a platform for every nut who wants to speak? Or is there a limit?
“My only question is, at what point does a University having someone give a speach become a sort of implied approval or endorsment of that speaker? Should our institutions give a platform for every nut who wants to speak? Or is there a limit?”
Well, that’s three “only question(s).” Taking them in order:
1) I don’t think it ever becomes an implied approval or endorsement, especially when the university endeavors to have different points of view represented. It’s not fear to read the booking of a speaker with an endorsement unless the University authorities explicitly say, “We agree with everything he says.” In this instance, my understanding is that they’re embarking on a lengthy study of Iran. That being the case, who better to speak than the country’s current president?
2) They shouldn’t be compelled to, no. But they shouldn’t be compelled not to.
3)There may be, but no one should be entitled to set that limit other than the people who are given the responsibility for making those decisions. The limits should not be imposed courtesy of the heckler’s veto.
PAD
I think it worth mentioning that Iran publically denounced the 9/11 attacks when they happened. I am unaware of anything that the Iranian President has personally said about them one way or the other.
Admitting that ignorance on my part Mr. David, your post implies that he, at least, has made some sort of statement of support about the attacks. I am reminded of the whole conflating of Saddam Hussein and 9/11 that went on before the invasion of Iraq. Has the Iranian President or his government changed their tune regarding 9/11 in the interim?
Oh, and regarding the speech at Columbia: it is my understanding there will also be a question-and-answer session. That may be the only opportunity we EVER have to subject the guy to actual tough questions regarding Holocaust-denial, women’s rights, nuclear prolifiration, etc.
PAD, I have to disagree with you. Ahmadinejad is not coming to Columbia to seek common ground, he’s coming for propaganda purposes. Why should Columbia allow him to use their (rapidly diminishing) prestige to spew his venom? Why should the NYPD spend money on overtime for the officers protecting him during a photo op at Ground Zero?
But let’s say you’re right, we should give him a platform. Well, Yizkor’s tomorrow, would you give a platform at your Synagogue in place of your Rabbi’s sermon? There’s a precedent for that, since in the Middle Ages European Jews were haraunged every Shabbos by Christian clergy, told they were going to Hëll for not converting.
This is not a war of ideas, such as between competing political parties. It is an apocalyptic struggle for him, as he views Israel’s rebirth as a sign that his Mahdi is coming. He will do anything to hasten the Mahdi’s coming, including turning Tel Aviv and Haifa into smoldering craters if he could. I happen to have relatives living in both cities, so you might understand how I object to that.
Let me end with a story. About twelve years ago I read an issue of the Incredible Hulk that you wrote, in which the Hulk goes to Israel to stop Achilles of the Pantheon from killing the next Hitler. Sabra gets into a brawl with the Hulk, which trashes Jerusalem, and ends with the Hulk about to punch her into the Kosel. Sabra’s thought baloon said something about how her superior’s would kill her if the Hulk smashed the Kosel. And I was sittting there rapt, until it hit me: the Hulk can’t smash the Kosel. He could bang on it for hours, get madder and madder, stronger and stronger, but I felt while sitting there reading that comic that if HaShem did not want Titus to destroy the kosel, or the Jordanian Arab Legion, he wouldn’t let the Hulk do so either. (You had the Hulk, whose throat had been paralyzed by Sabra’s stinger whisper that he just wanted to talk, and then he lowered his fist.) However Judaism has a clear motto: we don’t sit around and wait for miracles to happen. If the Hulk is about to hit the Kosel, you try to stop him from doing so. (And if you can’t at least distract the Hulk you’re the worst super-soldier in the world. Seriously, why hasn’t Ms. Bat-Seraph been fired yet?) If we don’t want Ahmadinejad to realize his apocalyptic fantasies, then we have to take action. We should be organizing a boycott of Iran. We should be pulling our troops out of Iraq, so he can’t hold them hostage if he launches an attack on any of allies in the Middle East. We should be developing allies to isolate Iran. But we should not invite Ahmadinejad to tea and hope he changes his behavior. I believe the British and French tried that with a dictator who claimed to only want the Sudetenland. How did that turn out?
Anyway, have a G’mar Chasima Tova PAD.
Leor Blumenthal
Yes, let’s take out the president of the largest Arab/Muslim democracy. We can quit pretending we believe we can make all this democracy-bs work. Who are we kidding? Then we can work our way up to taking out all of these socialist nations where all the money spent on taking care of people should be spent preparing to kill them. They don’t realize the chief virtue of the human race is intolerance. It’s all so clear now.
At what point does discussing racism increase its invulnerability?
I’m sure there’s an answer, but the taboo against the discussion of race and racism nurtures the denial of racism, and the denial of racism is racism’s most reliable shelter, so taboos and censorship aren’t the answer.
Now that I consider it further, the examples I was thinking of were examples of lop-sided discussions. Solving a problem rooted in closed access with additional closed access will only work in a fantasy world.
That rings painfully close to home. Canada-Japan culture group I headed until recently has monthly dinners at which a guest speaker/presenter gets to talk about/demonstrate some aspect of Japanese life/culture. This month’s was supposed to be the Canadian head of a Japanese religious group which is expanding abroad. Unfortunately, the new Board running things (mostly relative newcomers who decided they wanted a kick at the can last elections so why not?) saw the word ‘religion’ and went into panic mode. “It’s a small group, like a cult, not mainstream, what if someone objects, what if we’re seen as endorsing, what if…?” My response to that was “tell them to GET A LIFE already” but fear carried the day and the new executive cancelled the speaker and brought in someone else. This seriously pìššëd øff a founding member who is involved in that group, and cost the board the services of the guy who has been organizing those dinners for over ten years now and who resigned in anger over the Board’s action. Yet the new executive still can’t see they were wrong here.
As for Columbia, for S’Net’s sake, have the guy speak. As Mr. David rightly points out, that’s one of the cornerstones of the American Way and it doesn’t count if you get free speech but the other side doesn’t. With luck, Holocaust survivor groups would get together and have the auditorium packed. Then, one after the other they’d stand, quietly state “I was there” and then walk out. Hard to beat as dámņìņg messages go.
Um, what’s wrong with just saying Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev was denied permission to visit Disneyland in 1959? I was born in 1978 but I’ve heard the anecdote. Guess it would have ruined the rhythm of the joke, you’re the professional writer around here…
(No word yet on whether he’ll be permitted to go to Disneyland. And if you have to ask why I brought that up, you’re too young for me to explain it.)
It cuts both ways. People saying the university shouldn’t invite him are exercising their free speech, and I’ve yet to hear anyone demand the gov’t step in and force the uni to do it.
People have a right to speak. They don’t have a right to be provided someone else’s microphone. If people dislike that Columbia is giving out their microphone, they have a right to say so and Columbia has a right to weigh people’s outrage in their decisions. That, too, is called liberty.
Should have been allowed to go to Ground Zero. Public place and all. Peaceful Assembly. He’s not a citizen, but foreign leaders and diplomats should be extended similar courtesies when they are in the country. If we’re going to allow the KKK to march peacefully in a town square (and we do, and should) I don’t see why we can’t let a Holocaust denier speak too. Equally repulsive.
Columbia is a private university and should be selective in who they invite to speak on campus. But the explanation that they are beginning an educational series on Iran is sufficient explanation for me. The President of Iran is the ideal speaker for such a circumstance.
If the synagogue I am a member of could actually get the President of Iran to speak to us, I’d attend. It would be inappropriate during a High Holy Day service, but on a different day, sure! (Columbia’s Speaker Series is a Speaker Series, so inviting a guest to Speak is kind of expected.)
Calling Iran a “democracy” is an abuse of the term. Being able to cast a vote alone does not a democracy make. Elections must be free and fair, and the government must protect certain basic liberties and human rights.
Iran’s presidential candidates are vetted by a “Council of Guardians” who ensure that the candidates are loyal to the “ideals” of the “Islamic Revolution.” Shi’a Islam is the state-sponsored religion. The Iranian goverment employs torture on a scale that makes Guantanamo look tichy by comparison. Iranian women are brutally oppressed, as sanctioned and in some cases even required by Iranian law.
In any event, however, I agree with Peter: let Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia University. Let him see what it’s like to speak on a more level playing field, where people aren’t prohibited by threat of force from pointing out how intellectually and morally bankrupt his rhetoric is.
I admit our nation isn’t perfect when it comes to the ideal of truly free speech. But we’re leaps and bounds ahead of Iran and are the better for it. Let’s show that off! I’d rather tell the world we’ve nothing to fear from a vapid little man like Ahmadinejad, than to send a signal that we’re so frightened of him that we must put a muzzle on him.
Dave: “People saying the university shouldn’t invite him are exercising their free speech…”
That’s irrelevant. The issue isn’t whether or not opponents of Ahmadinejad being able to speak at Columbia University are within their rights. They have the right to openly disagree with the University. But that doesn’t mean they are right to do so.
Whether or not someone is within their rights is an entirely separate issue from whether or not one feels their intellectual position is the correct one.
I do think it was a mistake on Columbia’s part to invite the iranian president. When a prestigious university invites a speaker, it does confer a certain academic legitimacy on that person’s opinions. It is a little like inviting a creationist to speak at the biology department or an astrologer in the astronomy department. Even if what you have in mind is the real scientists refuting him (or in this case survivors and historians), he will still be able to go home saying that creationism or holocaust denial was seriously discussed and considered in an academic setting. In Achenidajad’s case this actually playing right into his hands, since ‘all he wants is an open discussion about the holocaust.’ Furthermore, I doubt people who are invited to lecture, and especially world leaders, are brought on stage to be humilated. On the contrary, they are treated very diplomatically. Also, the image of an audience full of dignified holocaust survivors is not going to happen either. What will happen is that at one point a crazy histerical jew or more, probably not even a survivor, will start yelling and foaming in the mouth. This will score Achmedinajad some extra points, and after words he wil tell how the jews who control america tried to silence him. I also don’t believe such a lecture is that beneficial on the educational level. It’s not like info on Iran, as well as Achemedinajad’s own words are not available to western audiences without actually inviting him to speak in one of the world’s most prestigeous universities.
That said, since they made the decision to invite him, it must be tolerated. any attempt to bully them to recind the invitation at this stage would be wrong and harmful.
“Yes, let’s take out the president of the largest Arab/Muslim democracy.”
a. Iran is not an Arab country. The majority are Persians. There are other minority ethinic groups, including arabs, I think.
b.Iran is not the largest muslim anything. Indonesia is the most populous muslim nation, and I also believe it’s a democracy at present. I think Kazakhstan is the largest muslim nation geographically.
c. Iran is not a democracy by western standards. I think Inxdonesia is, so it might be intersting to hear from its leader; Malaysia maybe, I’m not sure; and Turkey’s new democratically elected Islamic but democratic president.
“It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash.”
A country that is hosting a world leader under diplomatic auspices should not kill him, nor would doing so accomplish anything positive.
Last time I was in NY I saw a small demonstration by american Iranians against Achmenidajad near the library. I think he was visting then too.
The Iranian-Canadian blogger Kamangir can provide some insight about Iran, but he is an opponent of the current government. You can google him.
I myself would love to here him spurt his idiotic ideas on the holocast, but in my fantasy world he would then have to listen to my ideas on how the crusades were a myth…Thus proving his relegions distrust and antichristian motivations are based on the drunken ramblings of a sailor in istanbul in the 10th century.
So at the end of the evening we part ways thinking each other are just misguided idiots. Actualy now that I think about it thats the way most of my dates end up….
Isn’t there still a warrant for his arrest active for his participation in the Iran Hostage Crisis? And if so, can we arrest him when he steps off the plane?
” People saying the university shouldn’t invite him are exercising their free speech”
I’ve seen this kind of thinking made before, and I don’t think it’s actually correct. People saying the university are not really excercising free speech…they’re in fact excercising censorship. Free speech protects them from govnerment regulation of what they say, but don’t mistake their actions for free speech. It’s an act of censorship.
An excercise of free speech in this case would be to set up a debate, or a presentation able to present ideas opposed to those presented by the Iranian President.
I have no reservation against rephrasing for accuracy what I first present casually. Iran is considered part of the Middle East, is it not? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president of the largest Middle-Eastern Muslim democracy which is a source of a substantial amount of the world’s oil.
…
Calling Iran a democracy is no more an abuse of the term than referring to the US as a democracy for its first century and a half or so. Garrison Keillor pointed out that the virtue of the prohibition of alcohol was not that blue-nosed puritans wanted to oppress fun, but that men were privileged at the time to get drunk then go home and beat the crap out of their wives (www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/179016.php). If you want to paint democracy as more virtuous that it really is, that isn’t the problem of anyone observing the literal definitions of the word.
democracy:
“government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections”
Neither is true of Iran. In Iran supreme power is vested in the supreme council and in Islamic law.
Furthermore, modern democracy is also usually associated with the existence of certain individual rights that do not exist in Iran.
The analogy to prohibition is irrelevant to this discussion. Prohibition may have been motivated by religious reasons, but was implemented by democratic tools. In Iran religious law is forced on the people and exercised by undemocratic means.
The largest middle easten muslim democracy is still Turkey.
“Admitting that ignorance on my part Mr. David, your post implies that he, at least, has made some sort of statement of support about the attacks. I am reminded of the whole conflating of Saddam Hussein and 9/11 that went on before the invasion of Iraq. Has the Iranian President or his government changed their tune regarding 9/11 in the interim?”
Iran supports terrorists organizations, but it has not supported, to the best of my knowledge, 9/11.
“Posted by: bobb alfred at September 21, 2007 02:25 PM
” People saying the university shouldn’t invite him are exercising their free speech”
I’ve seen this kind of thinking made before, and I don’t think it’s actually correct. People saying the university are not really excercising free speech…they’re in fact excercising censorship. Free speech protects them from govnerment regulation of what they say, but don’t mistake their actions for free speech. It’s an act of censorship.”
Would you say that the position I posted above — that Colombia was wrong to invite the Iranian president — is in fact an act of censorship?
Doesn’t he get enough free speech time in his own country?
Columbia will let a man speak, that has declared capital punishment on anyone who is homosexual, but won’t let the ROTC be on campus because of it’s don’t ask don’t tell policy.
Micha,
Thanx for the reply to the Iran/911 question. As you’re someone who lives in Israel, I’ll go on the assumption that you would have likely heard of most of the more obnoxious statements that flow out of Iran.
If you’re referring to the council of guardians, they are accountable to the supreme leader, who is accountable to the assembly of experts, who are answerable to elections. If you’re referring to the council of ministers, they are accountable to the Iranian president, who is answerable to elections. Democracy.
It’s relevant to misogyny, which I cited in demonstrating misogyny’s irrelevance in disqualifying democracy.
Without further analyzing, I will say this short thing:
If Gene Ray gave a guest lecture at MIT, then it doesn’t seem so impossible for the Prez of Iran to give a speach at Columbia and have everyone realize “Hey, maybe it’s to bring about a better concept of HIS ideas so we can understand how MUCH we disagree?”
(And, actully you’ll note, that Gene Ray is similarly anti-semetic… he’s just not in charge of a country)
To me, the overriding factor is that he’s the president of a country. The president of any country is a huge deal. When we refuse to consider the possibility of communicating with him, we hinder ourselves.
Whether he’s spewing venom in a Columbia speech or not, I don’t see anyone absorbing that venom and coming away from that speech believing in the guy. I don’t think anyone in America would be at all closer to being one of his followers after the speech than they were before. So I don’t think he’s capable of doing any harm while being here. I don’t even think he’d deliver a speech in America that remotely resembles a speech he’d deliver in Iran.
But in letting him speak, he gets a chance to see Americans as real people, not just statistics around the world. The Bush administration has taken the policy of not talking to countries it doesn’t like, and that has made things so much worse with Iran and Korea. You can’t solve things diplomatically if you refuse communication at all. Having him speak at a college university isn’t a major act of diplomacy, but it’s the same principle. Communication is better than silent mistrust.
It’s not purely because of Ahmadinejad. The invitation to him did not happen in a vacuum. At the same time, Lawrence Summers — the former president of Harvard — was invited and then disinvited to speak at UC-Stanford. This was because a couple of years ago, when discussing why more men than women seem to be drawn towards mathematics and physics, he wondered — WONDERED — if there was some biological difference in the brains of the sexes. That sin cost him his job at Harvard.
The principle you discuss, PAD, is admirable in theory, but it seems it’s never put into practice. Extremists from the Left and anti-American people from abroad are granted that privilege, but their ideological counterparts are shouted down, threatened, assaulted, and driven away.
For example: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and several others have been openly assaulted when giving speeches. The Minuteman Project people were driven off a stage by a mob. Bush and his cabinet members were offered honorary doctorates to come and give commencement addresses, then the offers were withdrawn under considerable fire from faculty and staff. And don’t even get me started on Daniel Pipes or military recruiters.
If academia was anywhere near consistent in following this principle, then they’d have a modicum of respect from me — and others of my bent. But we hear the lofty ideals that never seem to apply to “our” kind of people, only to those that tend to reinforce the dominant dogma of colleges, and our bûllšhìŧ detectors nearly explode.
The day that Benjamin Netanyahu is accorded the same kind of treatment as Mr Ahmadinejad on a college campus, then I will respect the colleges. But I don’t see that happening any time soon.
J.
Jason M. Bryant said, “The president of any country is a huge deal. When we refuse to consider the possibility of communicating with him, we hinder ourselves.”
That reminds me of the Babylon 5 episode “The Coming of Shadows” in which the Narn ambassador G’Kar protests the upcoming arrival of the Centauri emperor. Captain Sheridan tries to point out that G’Kar would have the opportunity to speak directly with the head of the Centuari Republic, but G’Kar refuses to listen.
Now granted the Iranian president’s visit to Columbia isn’t the same type of thing (a visit to the UN would be more comparable), but as others have said, the visit gives people who attend the event the opportunity to question his statements, either those made at the event or those already on record.
That presupposes, of course, that there will be a set aside time for questions (which he’d take part in) and that he won’t just be interrupted by hecklers during his speech.
Rick
If your bûllšhìŧ detector is telling you Lawrence Summers’s, Ann Coulter’s, Pat Buchanan’s, Rush Limbaugh’s, Karl Rove’s, or George Bush’s access to the American public does not exceed the president of Iran’s, it may be time to trade it in for one with the upgraded accuracy.
Mike, I’m not talking about their general access to the American public, I’m talking about their reception and access on college campuses.
Anyone think that the president of Iran might get nailed with a cream pie while at the podium? Greeted with loud, rowdy mobs that try to shout him down?
I thought not.
J.
I’m part of a reasonably prestigious speaker series at work. On the one hand, we don’t pay honoraria, so the issue of whether we support someone’s ideas/actions by paying them to speak doesn’t come up. And we have had controversial people in, and do occasionally make the point that having someone speak doesn’t necessarily mean either the company or the people doing the speakers series agree with ’em.
Still, we do have self-imposed limits. The example I like to use is that it’s very unlikely we’d ever have Ann Coulter speak. ‘Cause as far as we can tell, she has no particularly original or interesting ideas or concepts, but merely preaches hate, and holds no inherently important or interesting position.
We would probably have, say, Billy Graham, William Buckley, Karl Rove, etc. (i.e. any number or religious and/or conservative figures) speak who either actually have ideas and positions to defend and discuss or whom are of significance as to their ideas due o the position they hold/held. But a fair number of these better be ready to defend their views from some very smart people during the Q&A period. We encourage politeness with the questions, but that doesn’t stop very pointed ones (nor do we wish to stop such, but we want the questions focused on ideas, not personal invective).
Anyone think that the president of Iran might get nailed with a cream pie while at the podium?
Well, of course not. He’d have massive, highly trained security, and there aren’t many people willing to risk throwing their lives away for such a trivial reason. His odds would be much higher of being shot.
Portraying the pie-in-the-face as a denial of access sounds like a step away from comparing Ann Coulter to Rosa Parks insisting on her right to sit at the front of the bus. It’s a denial of privilege that’s all kinds of wrong.
To paraphrase CS Lewis, why resort to murder to get what you want when cards will do it for you? If he simply can’t be put in his place during the q&a, the shortcoming is ours, not his.
Talk radio host Glenn Beck suggests surrounding the Iranian President with Jews while he’s here: Jews for his secret service agents, limo driver, etc.
Personally? Let the guy visit ground zero. However, I don’t think any level of security would keep him safe. He might walk in, but walking out could be problematic. He might get carried out…
But that wouldn’t solve anything either. In fact, it would probably just elevate the problem. Create a martyr of this monster. Propaganda for other of his ilk to use against those “infidels.”
I wonder if President Bush went to Iran… just how safe would he be there?
RLR
“Posted by: David Hunt at September 21, 2007 03:24 PM
“As you’re someone who lives in Israel, I’ll go on the assumption that you would have likely heard of most of the more obnoxious statements that flow out of Iran.”
I can’t really claim to know much more than you do. Maybe a little more by virtue of our media giving Iran a little more focus than yours.
By the way, have you read Ahmadinajad’s letter to Bush?
———————-
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at September 21, 2007 04:25 PM
“Whether he’s spewing venom in a Columbia speech or not, I don’t see anyone absorbing that venom and coming away from that speech believing in the guy. I don’t think anyone in America would be at all closer to being one of his followers after the speech than they were before. So I don’t think he’s capable of doing any harm while being here. I don’t even think he’d deliver a speech in America that remotely resembles a speech he’d deliver in Iran.”
Do not underestimate the power of ideals, even bad ones, to filter into people minds and affect them. Ideas are very powerful: they multiply themselves by word of mouth, print and internet. And once they come into the world they never go away completely. Ideas are very dangerous. But this is a risk we’re willing to take in order for their to be a free exchange of ideas — so the good ideas make it through.
————————-
Mike:
“The analogy to prohibition is irrelevant to this discussion.
It’s relevant to misogyny, which I cited in demonstrating misogyny’s irrelevance in disqualifying democracy.”
I have no idea how you got from prohibition to mysogyny, or how mysoguny in the context of the US has anything to do with realities in Iran now.
—————–
Mike:
“If you’re referring to the council of guardians, they are accountable to the supreme leader, who is accountable to the assembly of experts, who are answerable to elections. If you’re referring to the council of ministers, they are accountable to the Iranian president, who is answerable to elections. Democracy.”
I don’t have the time or the inclination the embark on this kind of Mike-discussion that seems to be starting here. Does Iran constitute a democracy? I’ll leave it to the people on this thread to decide on their own. The information about the structure of Iran’s government (very complicated) and about how politics work in Iran, human rights etc. are both readily available in Wikipedia or elsewhere. It is quite interesting.
I think the chance of a huge, emotional crowd on site would be large…
Yeah, who knows? A bunch of students might kidnap him and hold him hostage for 444 days…
(of course that wouldn’t happen! And pointing that out would be fun! Another lost opportunity for some politically useful snark)
Jay hits the nail on the head–many of the people complaining about this are mad that Columbia and other Universities are very very particular about when they will support free speech. The juxtaposition of this with the Larry Summers debacle, the Chemerinsky hiring-firing-rehiring, the fact that Columbia won’t let the ROTC on campus because of their discrimination against gays…but invites the leader of s country that proudly executes gays and isn’t the least bit squeamish about anyone knowing it…
Bust you know what? Hypocrisy on campus is no surprise to anyone who has ever gone to college. The politically correct mindset, with its perfect storm of tyranny, cowardice and smug self indulgence, simply attracts hypocrisy like flies to šhìŧ. Yet it seems stupid to me to complain about that. What’s wrong isn’t the hypocrisy, it’s the policy. Discriminating against all political groups equally is not the answer, it’s not discriminating at all.
Trying to get Columbia to be even less committed to the free exchange of ideas is just excusing their earlier bad behavior.
CU, you are the icon of bigotry. I doubt most highly you would permit Billy Graham or another of his caliber speak at your university or other of the Christian faith, and probably not even of the Jewish faith. Yet you permit this monument of hatred, anti-emitism, and terrorism have free speech at your podium. How much federal funds flow through your school? Perhaps it is time those funds dried up and only those who supported your bend mentality supported your school.
The reason you have no idea Bill Meyers literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy is because you are in the habit of denying what literally takes place in the same threads you make your denials.
Thank you for validating Wikipedia as a source:
Democracy.
Unless I’m missing something:
…
Who gets held to their tyranny, cowardice and smug self-indulgence? Totalitarian dictators and the politically correct. It’s funny how it takes so little privilege for the beneficiaries of political correctness to develop vices not even, say, the chivalrous knights who proudly fought to preserve slavery developed.
“fear carried the day”
Those four words best express the whole situation.
“It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash.”
Hate is hate, people. Why is it okay for us to take out a foreign leader in an unprovoked attack, when we would be insensed if someone did that to us (well, in most cases)? Would we then turn the sniper over to Iran for punishment, as we would demand of them? It is hate that has gotten us where we are, and as a nation that desperately needs to improve our worldly image, we should be doing all we can to appear courteous, friendly, and open to intelligent negotiation. I’m not saying roll out the red carpet and hand over the keys to the city, but treat people as you would want to be treated, no matter what you think of them personally. That is the basis of civility.
Forgive my dorkitude, but to paraphrase Gandalf the Grey, “There are those that live who deserve to die. There are those who die who deserve life. Can you give it to them?”
In other words, it is not up to us to play God. Unless we live in Iran, and know the President personally, we are all victims of the media, and do not know all the facts. Do I hate the man? No. I have no reason to. Do I trust him? Not on your life. But that’s no reason to be discourteous. Listen to him in person, without the media’s interpretation, and THEN judge for yourself.
“Thank you for validating Wikipedia as a source:”
Mike, I am offering wikipedia as a source, not your interpretation of the information which wikipedia offers provides . This is why I refered people straight to the source.
“The reason you have no idea Bill Meyers literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy is because you are in the habit of denying what literally takes place in the same threads you make your denials.”
I’m not exactly clear how you got from prohibition to mysogyny. You have made no meaningful comparison between the phenomena of mysogyny in the US — of which you have not actually said anything of substance — and the present phenomena of how the Iranian government and law treats women. Nor have you addressed the quite interesting issue of how all this relates to democracy. As usuall you prefered to spin words and have imaginary conversations with yourself rather than actually deal with the issues at hand in a way that would require you to learn and understand real phenomena rather than simple play around with words. What a shame.
Bill of course has not “literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy.” That’s only the inability of your binary mind to process the information.
I must say that I am saddened but not surprised that you apparently find Achadinajad and Bin Laden appealing to the point of becoming an apologist for them. You are not the first to be drawn to these kind of leaders.
Jay, I’m willing to bet you right now that there will be an angry mob at Columbia trying to shout him down. Pie throwing? Probably not, given that his security will likely not let anyone close enough to him to throw a pie. But there will be people trying to shout him down.
Bill Mulligan, I agree with you on this one. Yes, colleges are not always consistent in their positions on free speech, but the answer isn’t to validate their inconsistencies by pressuring them to be more restictive. It’s to pressure them to be more open. So, let I’m-a-dinner-jacket give his talk and face a little q-and-a. Maybe he’ll see that not all Americans are out to destroy Islam after all.
Hëll, let Anne Coulter debate him. If nothing else it would be entertaining.
Unless I’m missing something:
enough people Summers worked with simply felt free to publicly say they didn’t like him — there was no other coercion
Yes. You are missing something. As there is no benefit in engaging in conversation with you other than the ignoble feeling of amusement at toying with the obtuse, I feel no great desire to help you out here.
Oh heck, just google “larry Summers” at google news. Rather surprised you missed this; it’s been mentioned quite a bit lately.
As far as the principal of free speech is concerns you are all completely correct in supporting free speech and opposing attempts to curtail it in this case.
However your expectations from this actual event are not very realistic. This will not be a debate, a discussion, a learning experience, q & a, understanding. These terms have little to do with what is going to happen in Columbia. What is going to happen is that Achmadinajad will score a few propaganda points — maybe more maybe less — and then he’ll go home and the world will keep on turning.
Maybe he’ll see that not all Americans are out to destroy Islam after all.
I think he knows that, Den. My gut feeling is that he’s not as crazy as he acts, as opposed to, say, Hugo Chavez, who is just a whack job.
I don’t know that he’ll be shouted down though. Tickets are hard to come by and were reserved. The reaction may well be determined by how they were allocated. Having gone to Columbia to visit my mom often back in the day when she was getting her PhD (and I came terrifyingly close to becoming an alumni myself–there’s a bad fit!) I can assure you that there are enough hardcore Jew-haters there to make a good showing.
Hopefully the saner members of the school will show up (actually it would be great if he was greeted by an empty auditorium but that’s not going to happen) and give him their respectful silence, ask intelligent hardball questions, and let his answers do their own damage.
But it’s good to let him talk. Hey! maybe he’ll go batshit insane and start blabbing about how, at his speech to the UN, he was surrounded by light and nobody blinked for 27 minutes. Funny, funny man.
Micha, I get what you’re saying, but he’d also score propaganda points if we stop him from speaking. At least this way there’s always the chance something good will come out of it.